[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 15:24:57 01/05/17 Thu
Well LionFan, sounds like I got you attention. Sorry to irritate you, but maybe you're proving my point. And maybe your the one with a non-ranked kid?
Rankings are relative. No real difference between a 2 and 3 star. But huge difference between a non-ranked kid and a ranked kid, just like huge difference between a 2star and a 5star.
I've also said on and individual basis, only a small factor but number of ranked in a class it's a great indicator.
Of course, FBS coaches like Saban, Jimbo and Shaw all talk down rankings while their assistants sign nothing but ranked kids. When the last time you saw Alabama play more than an unranked kid. Or USC, or even lowly BC. Look on the commits boards and count the unranked kids.
But having hard time seeing how having more ranked kids is a bad thing for any Ivy. Sure seems like the coaches want these kids bad. And, I'd point out that like FBS, the Ivy's are going all over the country these days looking for them.
Finally, please look at the more academic FBS programs like Duke, Northwestern and Stanford. All ranked kids. Huh? Why is that??
Also note that every spring and summer, virtually all Ivy offers (ok, academic support offers) are to ranked kids, and it's not until they fall off the board that the teams start to pay attention to the unranked kids. Maybe that means nothing? Oh, snap!
But as I've said, ranking doesn't make a kid good. But it does highlight what kids may be good, and really good. So the more ranked kids, the higher the chance of some kids that can make plays rather than just be totally adequate.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]